# South Korea + US vs. Full On North Korean Attack **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [April 14, 2017, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-korea-us-vs-full-on-north-korean-attack/784472 "2017-04-14T21:52:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2017, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-korea-us-vs-full-on-north-korean-attack/784472/21 "2017-04-15T22:45:21Z")
> [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > I think he has overplayed his card and lost reliability among his generals. Mass defections in this war would not surprise me. Are you talking about Kim or Trump?šŸ˜‰ ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2017, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-korea-us-vs-full-on-north-korean-attack/784472/22 "2017-04-15T22:52:00Z")
This would be where the A-10ā€™s would be doing a number on NK armor and artillery. ---
**Author:** ![FavreCo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a698b9/32.png) [@FavreCo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FavreCo)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2017, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-korea-us-vs-full-on-north-korean-attack/784472/23 "2017-04-16T04:52:39Z")
NK would be wiped out as fast as the Iraqis. The NK ground troops would be shitting their pants and retreating or dying. There would be no need for conventional warfare with ground troops. Itā€™s nothing like the 1950s. We have enough firepower to wipe them out in a matter of hours. The only concern is what NK can get off towards Seoul in the 1st 10 minutes. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2017, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-korea-us-vs-full-on-north-korean-attack/784472/24 "2017-04-16T12:47:36Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > IIRC there are close to 10,000 North Korean artillery pieces. This may be a job that even numerous CBU-97 sensor-fuzed weapons wouldnā€™t handle. I doubt more than 1 in 10 of those guns is even capable of firing. Totalitarian regimes are notoriously lousy at long-term maintenance. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2017, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-korea-us-vs-full-on-north-korean-attack/784472/25 "2017-04-16T13:02:06Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > I doubt more than 1 in 10 of those guns is even capable of firing. Totalitarian regimes are notoriously lousy at long-term maintenance. Soviet guns (which is what NK uses, as I understand it) are famously maintenance-free - or at least designed to keep operating even if not maintained properly for a really long time. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2017, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-korea-us-vs-full-on-north-korean-attack/784472/26 "2017-04-17T19:25:30Z")
> [@FavreCo](#): > > NK would be wiped out as fast as the Iraqis. The NK ground troops would be shitting their pants and retreating or dying. Do you have some sort of reason for believing this to be true? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2017, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-korea-us-vs-full-on-north-korean-attack/784472/27 "2017-04-17T19:56:41Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > Soviet guns (which is what NK uses, as I understand it) are famously maintenance-free - or at least designed to keep operating even if not maintained properly for a really long time. ā€œGunsā€ in the sense of ā€œartilleryā€? Iā€™ve heard that about the Kalashnikov, that you can never clean it and bury it in the sand and then dig it up and fire it, but not about artillery. And I am told that one feature of the old May Day parades in Red Square during the halcyon days of the USSR was that a good number of the vehicles on parade pulled out for maintenance - [this sort of thing](http://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?125423-New-Russian-T-14-Armata-super-tank-grinds-to-a-halt-in-Red-Square-parade). The main ā€œbig gunā€ in the NK military is the [Koksan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koksan_(artillery)) about which relatively little is known. > [@RickJay](#): > > Do you have some sort of reason for believing this to be true? South Korea has a GDP about fifty times larger than North Korea, and spends five times as much on defense. South Korea has an [edge in most military equipment](http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.asp?form=form&country1=north-korea&country2=south-korea&Submit=COMPARE), and itā€™s better equipment. Most of the NK aircraft are 1950s era. > [@](#): > > The North also boasts 605 combat aircraft and 43 naval missile boats, but the (North) Korean Peopleā€™s Air Forceā€™s most numerous fighter is the subsonic MiG-21, which debuted in 1953. The latest model is the MiG-29, from the 1970s, and theyā€™re all armed with Vietnam War-era weapons. So in terms of military technology, North Korea pales in comparison to the South. South Korea is one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world. > > The Southā€™s GDP is 50 times as great as the Northā€™s, and it spends almost five times as much as North Korea on defense. Since it canā€™t keep up in traditional combat arms, the North is beefing up its unconventional warfare capabilities, including chemical and nuclear weapons, along with the ballistic missiles to deliver them. It canā€™t deliver the weapons by air because their antiquated air forces would be easy pickings for the US F-22 Raptor squadron on the Peninsula. [Cite](http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-who-would-win-in-a-war-between-north-and-south-korea-2016-4). [The average South Korean is three inches taller than the average North Korean](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/sep/27/john-mccain/yes-south-koreans-taller/) due to malnutrition. If NK attacks, Seoul suffers horribly for four days. Then North Korea suffers horribly until they all die or surrender. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2017, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-korea-us-vs-full-on-north-korean-attack/784472/28 "2017-04-17T20:18:34Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Do you have some sort of reason for believing this to be true? Well in 1950 it took the UN about two months to push the North Koreans from Pusan to almost the Chinese border. Back then there was no international force in Korea, Today there are a large number of US troops and others permanently stationed throughout the peninsula. The South regularly does exercises with the US on what to do in the event of an invasion. The South has access to the most high tech military equipment in the world the north has access to second rate ancient soviet equipment. The South will enjoy the logistical support of the free world to replenish their munitions. Nobody in South Korea will go hungry in the event of war, EVERYONE in the north will go hungry. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2017, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-korea-us-vs-full-on-north-korean-attack/784472/29 "2017-04-17T22:46:57Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > At a minimum, Iā€™d be buying Apple stock. Samsung would be knocked out of the picture for a while. Iā€™ll sell it to you! Samsung is a massive supplier for Apple. Iā€™m going to go with: it would be very bad for both Koreas, but US military would have some major losses too. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2017, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-korea-us-vs-full-on-north-korean-attack/784472/30 "2017-04-18T13:42:48Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > South Korea has a GDP about fifty times larger than North Korea, and spends five times as much on defense. The claim made was ā€œThe NK ground troops would be shitting their pants and retreating or dying.ā€ The fact South Korea p[ays its soldiers better does not suggest to me North Koreaā€™s soldiers will flee in terror. Are they phobic of paychecks? Didnā€™t the United States lose a war to a poorer, worse-armed country in Asia that one time? I am rather unconvinced by the argument that because South Korea is a richer country, North Koreaā€™s army would immediately collapse. For one thing I donā€™t see how itā€™s relevant at all; Canada has a bigger GDP than South Korea but a fraction of the military. For another, the only people in North Korea who are well fed are the soldiers. South Korea is a country with an army; North Korea is an army with a country. If thereā€™s a prolonged conventional war between the Allies and North Korea, Iā€™ve no doubt South Korea and its allies can win, but if you think North Korea will just fold up like Iraq, well, thatā€™s just not going to happen. And, of course, the war being limited to conventional weapons and only North Korea on one side are matters I find very concerning. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2017, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-korea-us-vs-full-on-north-korean-attack/784472/31 "2017-04-18T14:12:22Z")
All these rosy scenarios of a quick and easy toppling of the NK regime assume that China will sit on the sidelines. No matter how wonderful that chocolate cake was, that may not be the case. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2017, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-korea-us-vs-full-on-north-korean-attack/784472/32 "2017-04-18T14:14:14Z")
> [@wellanuff](#): > > I was just kind of idly wondering if it was something that the U.S. could pull off, if they wanted to, in terms of being able to penetrate all of the way to Pyongyang without alerting the NK military until doing a high-speed, low-altitude pass along the parade route. Drop cheese crackers, or MREs. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2017, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-korea-us-vs-full-on-north-korean-attack/784472/33 "2017-04-18T15:20:28Z")
> [@FavreCo](#): > > NK would be wiped out as fast as the Iraqis. The NK ground troops would be shitting their pants and retreating or dying. There would be no need for conventional warfare with ground troops. Itā€™s nothing like the 1950s. We have enough firepower to wipe them out in a matter of hours. > The only concern is what NK can get off towards Seoul in the 1st 10 minutes. I recall reading a book - may have been _Eye of the Viper,_ or _Bogeys and Bandits,_ or some other book - in which the author specifically mentioned that a future war with North Korea would be nothing like 1990s Iraq, in the sense that the North Koreans were far tougher, far more tenacious and hardened, and would make for a far uglier, bloodier war than Desert Storm or Iraqi Freedom. In another thread \*\*LSLGuy \*\*also pointed out that North Koreaā€™s terrain and climate is very different than the flat, sunny, open-space terrain of Iraq, which was perfectly suited to Western style air and land combat and played to all of the USAā€™s tech advantages. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2017, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-korea-us-vs-full-on-north-korean-attack/784472/34 "2017-04-18T15:45:33Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > I recall reading a book - may have been _Eye of the Viper,_ or _Bogeys and Bandits,_ or some other book - in which the author specifically mentioned that a future war with North Korea would be nothing like 1990s Iraq, in the sense that the North Koreans were far tougher, far more tenacious and hardened, and would make for a far uglier, bloodier war than Desert Storm or Iraqi Freedom. I recall reading about the Korean War. As someone mentioned up thread, the North Koreans were a push over. What makes the difference now? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2017, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-korea-us-vs-full-on-north-korean-attack/784472/35 "2017-04-18T16:28:52Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > I recall reading a book - may have been _Eye of the Viper,_ or _Bogeys and Bandits,_ or some other book - in which the author specifically mentioned that a future war with North Korea would be nothing like 1990s Iraq, in the sense that the North Koreans were far tougher, far more tenacious and hardened, and would make for a far uglier, bloodier war than Desert Storm or Iraqi Freedom. They are also undernourished, under-trained, poorly equipped with antiquated weaponry, and facing a military from South Korea, who would be much better fed, much better equipped, fighting to defend their homeland from invasion (and to avenge the destruction, most likely, of their capital city), and from the United States, which is, simply put, invincible. As mentioned, NK invades. They destroy much of Seoul, and have the advantage of three or four days while the US and South Korea muster a response. Then the Stealth bombers go in to degrade their radar and command-and-control. Within a few hours, six or eight at the most, the NK is blind and deaf. Then the US and South Korean airplanes go in and systematically shoot down and destroy all their 1950s era aircraft. (The score in the first Gulf War was, IIRC, 147 to 1 kill ratio of Allies vs. Iraqis). Now the North has no air cover. In go the A10 Warthogs and kill everything on treads. Behind them come the heavy bombers, and all of Pyongyang is an open tomb by dawn. The North tries to launch a nuclear- or chemical-tipped missile. We shoot it down, and subject the launch site to the kind of saturation bombing that reduces it to a moonscape. It would be horrible - a worse human disaster than any typhoon or earthquake. But Kim and his generals will have to have their remains collected with a squeegee. And the rest of the country better hope that accents havenā€™t diverged since the ceasefire in 1950 to the point where South Koreans donā€™t understand the phrase ā€œPlease donā€™t kill me - I havenā€™t eaten in three days and I didnā€™t even see the missiles that killed everybody else in my platoonā€. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2017, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-korea-us-vs-full-on-north-korean-attack/784472/36 "2017-04-18T16:49:05Z")
Keep in mind that weā€™re talking about a people who have lived in denial of reality for generations. Sure, we can bomb them to rubble, and chew up their tanks and spit them back out again, and so on, but through it all, the North Koreans would still be convinced that theyā€™re somehow winning. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2017, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-korea-us-vs-full-on-north-korean-attack/784472/37 "2017-04-18T16:55:07Z")
If North Korea is in a position where it sees launching a preemptive invasion as a viable strategy, then their backs are fully against the wall and they will pull out all the stops including nuclear, chemical and what have you. It may not be as easy as Desert storm. For one thing, Saddam sat on his hands inviting in weapons inspectors while the US built up a massive invasion force in Saudi Arabia. Kim isnā€™t going to wait that long before sending in a nuke or artillery barrage. Second, in the Gulf war although there was concern about a chemical attack, none materialized (because Saddam didnā€™t actually have any such weapons. The same will not be true in Korea where Kim clearly has chemical weapons and is rumored to have extensive biological weapons programs as well. While we would no doubt win such a war, the cost to the civilians in neighboring countries would be massive. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2017, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-korea-us-vs-full-on-north-korean-attack/784472/38 "2017-04-18T16:59:49Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > They are also undernourished, under-trained, poorly equipped with antiquated weaponry, and facing a military from South Korea, who would be much better fed, much better equipped, fighting to defend their homeland from invasion (and to avenge the destruction, most likely, of their capital city), and from the United States, which is, simply put, invincible. > > As mentioned, NK invades. They destroy much of Seoul, and have the advantage of three or four days while the US and South Korea muster a response. Then the Stealth bombers go in to degrade their radar and command-and-control. Within a few hours, six or eight at the most, the NK is blind and deaf. Then the US and South Korean airplanes go in and systematically shoot down and destroy all their 1950s era aircraft. (The score in the first Gulf War was, IIRC, 147 to 1 kill ratio of Allies vs. Iraqis). Now the North has no air cover. In go the A10 Warthogs and kill everything on treads. Behind them come the heavy bombers, and all of Pyongyang is an open tomb by dawn. The North tries to launch a nuclear- or chemical-tipped missile. We shoot it down, and subject the launch site to the kind of saturation bombing that reduces it to a moonscape. > > It would be horrible - a worse human disaster than any typhoon or earthquake. But Kim and his generals will have to have their remains collected with a squeegee. And the rest of the country better hope that accents havenā€™t diverged since the ceasefire in 1950 to the point where South Koreans donā€™t understand the phrase ā€œPlease donā€™t kill me - I havenā€™t eaten in three days and I didnā€™t even see the missiles that killed everybody else in my platoonā€. > > Regards, > Shodan I donā€™t think NK would actually invade ā€“ theyā€™d just launch everything they had at Seoul (and maybe Japan), killing anywhere from tens of thousands to millions, depending on how reliable their artillery and missiles actually are. After that, I think itā€™d go mostly as you suggest (though perhaps a tad more difficult due to terrain and weather), until the occupation. The occupation and rebuilding would be very, very difficult, and very, very expensive, but at least it could be lead by people with the same language and (mostly, anyway) history and culture. ---
**Author:** ![yanceylebeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yanceylebeef/32/12290_2.png) [@yanceylebeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yanceylebeef)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2017, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-korea-us-vs-full-on-north-korean-attack/784472/39 "2017-04-18T18:14:42Z")
From the moment the first artillery shell or missile is launched, there would be a terrible attack from the US. There are F-16s an hours drive south of Seoul. Say fifteen minutes to get them scrambled and in North Koreaā€™s air space. Seoul is going to be hit, hard, but the retaliation will happen in minutes, not hours or days. The ROK (Republic of Korea) military is not going to wait to attack. Not to mention the planes from bases in Japan, and whichever carrier group is patrolling the area. The one thing observers should be looking for is a NEO (Non combatant Evacuation Order) evacuation. Once that happens, the kimchi is about to hit the fan. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2017, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-korea-us-vs-full-on-north-korean-attack/784472/40 "2017-04-18T20:27:21Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > I recall reading about the Korean War. As someone mentioned up thread, the North Koreans were a push over. North Korea nearly won the war in the first ten weeks, a situatio nreversed only by the Allied invasion at Inchon. Things went horribly for North Korea until the Chinese joined in, but, then, things went horribly for South Korea until the Americans jumped in. Considering North Korea, barely a country at the time, was subject to a bombing campaign that actually tried to kill as many civilians as possible, and which killed at least two million of them, Iā€™d say their tenacity was pretty impressive, all in all. In any event, itā€™s not 1950 anymore. Where North Korea is unquestionably weak is their air force; they are pretty much conceding that point, strategically speaking. Attempting to ramp that up would be a waste of money. The problem you face is that the armies would be all mixed up right from the get-go. The Norks could literally be running around in Seoulā€™s suburbs by the time the air war was getting ramped up. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-korea-us-vs-full-on-north-korean-attack/784472.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-korea-us-vs-full-on-north-korean-attack/784472.md?page=3)